Article
Article No.: 08-8
Article Title: The Advantages and Disadvantages of a "360" Feedback Process
Author: Linda Gravett, Ph.D., SPHR
Every Human Resource practitioner I talk with agrees with me on
one point: there is no such thing as a perfect generic
feedback instrument and process. However, a customized “360”
or multi-rater process, when planned and executed well, can provide
excellent feedback for recipients and foster a motivating
environment for employees.
I’ve worked with organizations using this process for 15 years and
observed some wonderful advantages to the “360” process… and some
pitfalls. I’d like to share both in this article.
First, I want to clarify what I mean when I refer to the term, “360”
feedback. This is a process in which a person receives
feedback about his or her competencies from peers, supervisors,
direct reports, and internal and external customers. It’s a
complete picture of the impact one has on those with whom he or she
interacts on a frequent basis. Many companies use a “180”
feedback process instead, which allows for feedback from peers, the
supervisor, and sometimes direct reports (if applicable).
Advantages to the “360” Process
Let’s face it: a supervisor can’t be there to observe all
the interactions, strengths, and opportunities for improvement for
direct reports, especially if the span of control is wide. So
why should we expect the supervisor to be the only person to provide
performance feedback? We shouldn’t.
A major advantage to the “360” process is that it provides an
opportunity for all those people with whom a person comes into
frequent contact to offer feedback. A caveat here is that the
raters should be people that truly have observed an employee or
manager on a frequent basis. It’s not fair to ask people for
input that haven’t had a chance to observe someone’s skills,
talents, and abilities on a regular basis.
When feedback comes from many sources, it’s more difficult for a
person to brush aside constructive criticism and rationalize that
“the boss just has it in for me”. If several people suggest
that a manager needs to improve verbal communication skills, for
example, chances are high that this is indeed a necessary area for
improvement.
Another advantage of the “360” process is that it is designed with a
customer focus in mind. The customers can be internal or
external. Unfortunately, it’s difficult for some employees to
understand the impact their daily activities have on other
individuals or departments within the company. However, if
they receive direct and frequent feedback on how their actions
affect others, people are more likely to be attentive to deadlines
and quality requirements. They learn how to make their
organization look good, not just themselves.
I recommend that “360” performance evaluations are coupled with
competency-based job descriptions. When this occurs, an
employee or manager is recruited based on core competencies for his
or her position AND evaluated on those same competencies. When
coaching leaders, I often hear this complaint: “My performance
evaluation is not even remotely connected to my job description.”
There should be a direct connection, and the “360” process can
ensure this happens. The core competencies, by the way, should
be supportive of the company’s strategic objectives. In
deriving these competencies, the company’s leadership must ask,
“what skills, knowledge, and behaviors do we need across the
organization to meet the challenges of our mission and vision”?
The “360” evaluation is particularly strong when coupled with an
action plan developed by the person receiving feedback and shared
with those who provided the feedback. This action plan
demonstrates that the feedback was heard and that, assuming
suggestions are reasonable, will be put to use as soon as possible.
Pitfalls in the “360” Process
If you’ve tried the “360” process in your organization without
success, it may be for some of the following reasons.
If allowed to do so, people might be tempted to ask their friends in
the company to be the ones who receive feedback instruments.
This would definitely tip the scales in their favor and help ensure
that no negative comments are made. The process must be
carefully designed to minimize the possibility that this
“handpicking” doesn’t occur. I recommend that each person
receiving feedback send the instrument to at least 10 people, and
these people must be those with whom they interact on a frequent
basis - even if some of those people could possibly offer negative
comments.
One significant pitfall I’ve observed is when companies send out
“360” evaluations to raters without advance notice or information
about how to use the instrument. When an organization decides
to implement a “360” review process, two sets of participants must
be educated on how to effectively use the process: those
receiving feedback and those offering feedback. Communication
should also include objectives of the process and the expected
impact on the organization.
I strongly recommend that each person receiving feedback, especially
for the first time in this process, has a coach to help assess the
comments and ratings and to develop an action plan. The coach
could be the same person who compiles the results and should be an
external consultant or internal consultant from Human Resources.
By the way, I also recommend that the instruments are anonymous and
are sent directly to the person compiling the results. The
person receiving the feedback should not see the actual completed
instruments.
A Few Closing Thoughts
The “360” performance review process can be comprehensive,
positive, and effective if time is devoted on the front end to
design the process for maximum impact. The time is well worth
taking.
Regardless of the type of performance management process your
organization employs, I hope you’ll give serious consideration to
developing companion competency-based job descriptions and
evaluations. When competencies (or behaviors) are used,
employees have a more concrete understanding of exactly why they
aren’t meeting job requirements and what areas they need to improve
upon to be successful in their work.
If you have any questions or need more information about this article, please complete our Contact Form, or contact Dr. Gravett by telephone at 513-753-8870 or e-mail info@gravett.com.